Executing court's jurisdiction established based on property location, overriding prior orders requiring a transfer certificate.

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 11 /03/2025

This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for short the ‘executing Court’), in execution application No. 64/2013, whereby the appli- cation filed by the petitioner under Section 114 and Order 41 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the executing Court, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Or- der 21 Rule 11 CPC was disposed of and the petitioner was di- rected to submit the transfer certificate on the next date of hearing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner- company was the tenant of the respondent on the 3^rd floor of Crystal Mall, A-3, Jai Singh Highway, Near Moti Mahal Cinema, Jaipur, Rajasthan having office Nos. 304, 305, 306, 307, 308 and 309 by virtue of lease agreement dated 27.05.2004. The said lease agreement was for a period of 9 years with a lock-in period of 4 years at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,35,396.24/-. At the time of taking the premises in dispute on lease, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 8,12,377/- as a part of interest free security (equal to six months rent of the premises). After completion of the lock-in period of 4 years, the petitioner intimated the respondent vide letter dated 03.09.2008 of its intention to vacate the premises in dispute. On 05.12.2008, in terms of notice dated 03.09.2008, the petitioner vacated the premises and handed over the possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent and sought refund which was agreed to be made within 7 days’ from the date of execution of the document dated 03.12.2008. Respon- dent failed to pay the security amount of Rs. 8,12,377/-. Then, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause provided under the lease agreement and Mr. Prem Kumar was appointed as a sole Ar- bitrator for the adjudication of the dispute. Sole Arbitrator passed impugned award dated 19.07.2012, in favour of the petitioner and respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 13,30,719/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of award till realization of the amount. The petitioner filed an execution application. That was registered on 13.02.2013 and transferred to Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan-I.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had filed the objection under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC with regard to maintainability of the present execution application and the Executing Court vide order dated 12.10.2018 directed the petitioner to file transfer certificate for transferring the execution pe- tition on the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 114 and Order 41 CPC read with Sec- tion 151 CPC for reviewing the order dated 12.10.2018 but the Executing Court vide order dated 13.03.2019 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed premises is situated at Jaipur. So, petitioner had a right to file an execution application in Jaipur. So, the orders dated 12.10.2018 and 13.03.2019 passed by the Executing Court be set aside and the Executing Court be directed to decide the execution application filed by the petitioner, as per law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (1) Sundaram Finance Limited Represented by J. Thilak, Senior Manager (Legal) vs. Abdul Samad and Anr. in civil appeal No. 1650/2018 decided on 15.02.2018; and (2) Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Ors. in civil appeal Nos. 2879-80/2018 with Nos. 2881/2018, 2882/2018, 2883/2018, 2884/2018, 2885- 86/2018 2887-89/2018, 2890-91/2018 and 2892/2018 decided on 15.03.2018.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused t